## Facts

- Maine enacted a statute banning the importation of live baitfish to protect in-state fisheries from parasites and nonnative species.
- Robert J. Taylor, a Maine bait dealer, arranged shipment of about 158,000 live golden shiners from outside Maine into the state.
- Federal authorities charged Taylor under the Lacey Act for interstate transport of wildlife in violation of state law.
- Taylor sought dismissal, arguing the Maine import ban violated the dormant Commerce Clause and thus could not support the federal charge.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the federal district court found ecological risks and uncertainty and found less discriminatory measures were not then available; Taylor entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his constitutional challenge.
- The First Circuit reversed, holding the Maine statute facially discriminated against interstate commerce and failed the required justification for discriminatory laws.
- Maine, having intervened to defend its statute, pursued a direct appeal to the Supreme Court; the United States appeared supporting Maine’s position.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine, as an intervenor, could invoke the Supreme Court’s direct appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) after the court of appeals invalidated a Maine statute, and whether Maine had standing to proceed.
2. Whether Maine’s facially discriminatory ban on importing live baitfish violated the dormant Commerce Clause or was justified by a legitimate local purpose that could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory alternatives.

## Decision

- The Court held Maine could invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) and had standing despite intervenor status and despite the federal government not pursuing its own appeal.
- The Court held Maine’s import ban, though facially discriminatory, did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because Maine proved a legitimate ecological purpose and the unavailability of adequate nondiscriminatory alternatives.
- The Court reversed the First Circuit (8–1).

## Legal Principles

- A state may directly appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) from a federal court of appeals decision invalidating a state statute, including in a criminal case, and a state intervenor may have standing based on its substantial interest in defending its law.
- Facially discriminatory state laws affecting interstate commerce are generally invalid, but may be upheld if the state shows:
  - the law serves a legitimate local purpose; and
  - the purpose cannot be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means.
- Trial-court findings on feasibility of nondiscriminatory alternatives and related technical matters are reviewed deferentially; an appellate court may not displace supported findings with its own factual judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Maine’s ban on importing live baitfish because Maine proved that the measure addressed real ecological risks and that feasible, origin-neutral safeguards were not available, and it also confirmed Maine’s ability to directly appeal and defend its statute as an intervenor.


Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986)